- From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:51:39 +0100
- To: michaelm@netsol.com, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
At 08:31 07/09/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: >On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:10:37AM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > > I assume that for your applications you need some further constrained > > >definition of what a Resource is. That's fine. But are you suggesting > > >that your definitions be applied to other applications as well? > > > > I'm suggesting that the URI community stop hiding behind 'a resource is > > anything you can identify' and start talking about what resources are. > >Why? A lot of us in other application arenas are perfectly happy with that >definition and would prefer to keep it that way. Anything more constraining >starts to put unnecessary controls on what someone can do with a URI >and thats something we very explicitly _don't_ want to do. I'm not sure which of you I'm agreeing with here... I'm quite happy with resources being a flexible, extensible concept. I'm also happy with the name of a resource being a URI. I understand, and I'm comfortable with the fact that the entity body associated with the resource may change from time to time; and that two distinct resources may, in fact, have the same associated entity body. What I'm not happy with is that there is no widespread agreement on how I tell whether two URIs name the same resource or not. -- Cheers, John
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 09:52:02 UTC